I love how you think you can read my mind. You made a bad assumption. I corrected you. Not complicated.

That's pathetic and cowardly. Even for you. I knew that the final polls were made days before the election, I just didn't know the exact dates. I already answered that...

Originally Posted by Wells

What did happen was you made an assumption on when one of their polls was done.

Originally Posted by Merkava

LOL. I made no assumption. I didn't know the exact date, I don't have the 2004 calendar memorized. Sorry if I can't recall exactly when the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November falls every four years.

And the reference I provided as soon as I was questioned about it actually backs up my claim, something that rarely happens with you.
You're desperate to do anything to take the focus off of the fact that, once again, I've destroyed any attempt by you to prove your ridiculous and un-researched blanket statements.

Originally Posted by Wells

And don't criticize me for not reading my links when you didn't. Silver was talking about finding a way to punish any polling agency that didn't poll close enough to the date.

Glad to see you finally read it. But he only mentioned Rasmussen by name. By the way, find any more examples of Rasmussen ending polling earlier? Because it's so common, after all...

Originally Posted by Wells

One of the more common problems with Rasmussen actually is they do their "final polling" much farther back from the actual date than many other groups.

Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

Well I hope Obama wins. Republican candidates are pretty awful in my opinion this year. Obama has the ability to mend America's economy but the Republicans just block everything he tries to do,quite pathetic really.

Four years ago I supported Obama. (Of course four years ago I was living with three roommates and completely ignorant to reality.) I had hopes that he would use his time in office to enact public work projects, not unlike FDR's New Deal. It would have been a great way to repair our failing infrastructure while supplying the unemployed, many of whom were from the construction trades, with actual work. Would it have been long term? No. But it would have pumped money back into the economy.

Sadly Obama took the easy and all-together wrong way out. He GAVE money to the banks. He GAVE money to the automotive companies. He promoted and extended unemployment instead of offering work. He created a healthcare mandate that cuts deeply into small-business's. In short, he tried to spend his way out. And what ever minimal gains he may have made, are horribly off-set by the national deficit he greatly deepened. A deficit he CAN'T dig us out of. Instead it will be be left for whoever becomes the next President, whether this year or four years from now.

All we need now is a cheesy tag line and we can package it up as a Rom-Com.

Originally Posted by Wells

Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

This shows the average approval rating for the last 11 incumbent presidents running for re-election. The blue line is for incumbents who won. The red line is for those who lost. The chart ticks down by month to election day from 24 months out to 0. What's really fascinating about this chart, again Nate Silver plotted this thing over a year ago, is that it shows that somewhere between 9-11 months out, all incumbent presidents got a bump in their approval rating. And if you look at Obama's numbers, his numbers have also gotten a bump in the last couple of months, the exact same time frame, about 9-11 months out. What could cause that? My own speculation is that the primary process for the opposition party makes all challengers begin to look unattractive for a time until Super Tuesday, when the nominee usually becomes quite clear. Again, that is just speculation on my part.

Another comment I'd like to make is compare the red line on the chart (again, that's the average of incumbent presidents who lost), and look at Obama's numbers. He's tracking those numbers VERY closely. On average, incumbent presidents 9-10 months out bump up to nearly 50% approval. That's exactly what Obama is doing right now. It seems like after Super Tuesday, the incumbent then fades as the opposition rallies around the presumptive nominee.

That's a complicated chart so I'll try to de-code it. Follow these steps.

1. Find how many months out you are from the election, and pick that as your x-coordinate. We're 9 months out, so pick 9 from the bottom horizontal line.
2. You've got 7 red lines that are what's important. Follow the vertical line off the 9 until you reach the president's current approval rating. For example, let's say 45%. So pick the third red line from the bottom.
3. Now you have to draw your own extra horizontal line from the intersection of the 3rd red line and 9 months from election day BACK to the extreme left. This tells you his odds of re-election. If he's at 45% approval, 9 months out, he has a little better than a 50/50 chance of re-election.

This chart uses his approval rating in the Gallup poll. He's currently at 46%, so his current odds of re-election are around 55%-60%. Notice the way the chart is structured, that if he stays at 46%, his odds drop. At 3 months out, his odds are somewhere between 50%-55%. On election day, its around 45%-50%.

The breaking point is actually 47%, so Obama is on the cusp of either outcome if he remains unchanged for 9 months. A couple of percentage points either way can be a huge difference.

Global Warming is a lie because scientists know that solar power will replace fossil fuels in the 2030s which will drastically cut carbon emissions. Any liberal that tells you otherwise is a fool.You cannot ban guns because soon anyone will be able to print guns using a 3D printer. The only difference is they will be UNREGISTERED & make it more difficult to prosecute gun crime.

Sadly Obama took the easy and all-together wrong way out. He GAVE money to the banks. He GAVE money to the automotive companies. He promoted and extended unemployment instead of offering work. He created a healthcare mandate that cuts deeply into small-business's. In short, he tried to spend his way out. And what ever minimal gains he may have made, are horribly off-set by the national deficit he greatly deepened. A deficit he CAN'T dig us out of. Instead it will be be left for whoever becomes the next President, whether this year or four years from now.

I'm pretty sure Bush/Congress were the ones who gave TARP money to the banks/auto industry only to make back a profit of 30$ billion. Also, the US Auto Industry is back to #1 in the world. We have job gains every month, the economy is surely but slowly reviving, and having 40 million more people receiving the medical attention they deserve is a pretty nice thing.

Also, look at the things he wants to promote now for business and small business. He wants to punish the oversea job shippers, promote domestic products and raise taxes on the wealthy. However, what can you do with a Congress which anything that Obama proposes will just automatically reject? Heck, I laughed when the Republicans auto rejected the recent budget that wasn't even released yet. I laughed when they rejected a recent proposal that was originally a Republican idea and they rejected it. He's like Blizzard and it's customer base: Damned if you do.

I'm pretty sure Bush/Congress were the ones who gave TARP money to the banks/auto industry only to make back a profit of 30$ billion. Also, the US Auto Industry is back to #1 in the world. We have job gains every month, the economy is surely but slowly reviving, and having 40 million more people receiving the medical attention they deserve is a pretty nice thing.

Also, look at the things he wants to promote now for business and small business. He wants to punish the oversea job shippers, promote domestic products and raise taxes on the wealthy. However, what can you do with a Congress which anything that Obama proposes will just automatically reject? Heck, I laughed when the Republicans auto rejected the recent budget that wasn't even released yet. I laughed when they rejected a recent proposal that was originally a Republican idea and they rejected it. He's like Blizzard and it's customer base: Damned if you do.

It was the democrats that were all for it. Obama was elected in a landslide and the democrats had a supermajority in congress from 2009-2010. They had a blank check to do anything they wanted. They chose to stick with TARP and the massive debt spending. If they wanted to end the bailouts, they had all the power to do it.

I'm not sure how we go from Pelosi called the republicans "irresponsible" for voting no to the bailout, to blaming the republicans for bailing out the banks.

Democrats in Congress Monday launched a new multi-billion dollar drive to save the US auto industry, but the White House warned against their plans to take funds from a huge finance industry bailout.

Less than two weeks after Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill clashed in a new showdown over the reeling US economy, at the start of a “lame duck” session of Congress.

Democrats unveiled a $25 billion plan to shore up the reeling car industry using funds drawn from the finance bailout, in the final congressional session of President George W Bush’s turbulent presidency.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid hit out at Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for refusing to adapt the huge bailout to aid the auto industry, on which millions of jobs depend.

“All it would take is one stroke of a pen and that problem would be solved,” Reid said, as he opened the Senate lame duck session.

“We are seeing a potential meltdown in the auto industry, with consequences that could directly impact millions of American workers and cause further devastation to our economy.”

Last edited by Grummgug; 2012-02-14 at 05:50 AM.

Global Warming is a lie because scientists know that solar power will replace fossil fuels in the 2030s which will drastically cut carbon emissions. Any liberal that tells you otherwise is a fool.You cannot ban guns because soon anyone will be able to print guns using a 3D printer. The only difference is they will be UNREGISTERED & make it more difficult to prosecute gun crime.

It was the democrats that were all for it. Obama was elected in a landslide and the democrats had a supermajority in congress from 2009-2010. They had a blank check to do anything they wanted. They chose to stick with TARP and the massive debt spending. If they wanted to end the bailouts, they had all the power to do it.

I'm not sure how we go from Pelosi called the republicans "irresponsible" for voting no to the bailout, to blaming the republicans for bailing out the banks.

Democrats in Congress Monday launched a new multi-billion dollar drive to save the US auto industry, but the White House warned against their plans to take funds from a huge finance industry bailout.

Less than two weeks after Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill clashed in a new showdown over the reeling US economy, at the start of a “lame duck” session of Congress.

Democrats unveiled a $25 billion plan to shore up the reeling car industry using funds drawn from the finance bailout, in the final congressional session of President George W Bush’s turbulent presidency.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid hit out at Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for refusing to adapt the huge bailout to aid the auto industry, on which millions of jobs depend.

“All it would take is one stroke of a pen and that problem would be solved,” Reid said, as he opened the Senate lame duck session.

“We are seeing a potential meltdown in the auto industry, with consequences that could directly impact millions of American workers and cause further devastation to our economy.”

Either way, we made our money back and then some. While you may not think so, I think bailing out the auto industry had to have happened. And, look at them now, GM is #1 in the world again. (edit: Well, as of 2/16/12, GM just posted they made $7.6 billion in profit last year).

As far as the so called super majority people love to bring up, I bring up filibusters. That bullshit rule that was so abused and overused. Unfortunately, and this is the one thing I hate my own party for, Democrat congressmen lack the balls to call them on it and they back off. I REALLY would've loved to have seen the Democrats say "You know what? Screw you, we're calling your bluff and we'll sit there and see if you do follow through" but, nope.

What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
take rights away should NOT be reelected.

What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
take rights away should NOT be reelected.

except the compromise that was made is no longer that religious institutions must provide birth control, but its through the insurer.

What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
take rights away should NOT be reelected.

Clarify how this is more so about freedom of religion???
They are not taking away anyone's right to worship, they are not persecution anyone, nor are they telling anyone how to live.
He is merely providing inexpensive birth control to women through their insurance, same as a guy who get Viagra through their insurance.

The only people who are determined to "take away rights" are republicans at this point.
Propaganda is bad, you should actually look into women's health, not that you would bother.... seems most people would rather spout objections instead of asking why should we deny anyone easier access to protect from unwanted pregnancies.

What about the HHS mandate? Which is not about women's right but more importantly freedom of religion. This guy is making some scary moves. Anyone who wants to
take rights away should NOT be reelected.

I guess you value the right of an employer, over the right of an individual. If the churches religious freedom was expressed to it's full extent, no one would be able to get contraception. What right does an institution have in forbidding an individual from buying a policy that covers contraception directly from the insurer? You want the government instead to back a ban on what an individual can purchase, based on their employment? Like MS banning it's employees from buying Apple products? you would support such a ban? That's freedom?

In fact, and I know you will agree with me here, employers should not give full control of the salary to their employee. The employer should have the right to oversee an employees entire spending history, to make sure that none of the money provided by the employer, goes to spending on thing the employer finds to be against his morals. When you work at a health shop, they should have the right to stop you from buying Ben and Jerrie's. If you work for n oil company, they should be able to stop you from buying a hybrid...

Not special. Just constitutionally protected. You'd be ok with Acorn workers being forced to quarter soldiers in their homes because they receive government funds?

Separation of church and state work both ways, it doesn't just keep the government out of church. The point was they seem to have no problem being involved with government when it gets them billions of dollars, but when it requires they don't impose their religious beliefs on their employees its not ok.

Your analogy is a red herring because that amendment behaves entirely differently.

---------- Post added 2012-02-19 at 11:24 PM ----------

I mean we give church's exemption from taxes so they can stay separate from the government and in exchange they don't use the pulpit to push political goals (in theory).

Yet despite the billions Catholic Charities get from the government they don't seem to think they should have to comply with employee protections everyone else does, despite the fact they're not even a church in nature. This country spends too much time giving religious groups everything they want.

Separation of church and state work both ways, it doesn't just keep the government out of church. The point was they seem to have no problem being involved with government when it gets them billions of dollars, but when it requires they don't impose their religious beliefs on their employees its not ok.
.

So they're required surrender their constitutionally protected rights because they're hypocrites? I must have missed that ruling. I'm guessing Obama did too, since he walked back the policy.